Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 19, Issue 8, pp 2267–2281 | Cite as

Prosocial Spending and Subjective Well-Being: The Recipient Perspective

  • Wuke Zhang
  • Mingliang ChenEmail author
  • Ying Xie
  • Zhen Zhao
Research Paper


Previous research has demonstrated that people are happier after spending money on others (prosocial spending) rather than spending on themselves (personal spending). This relationship between prosocial spending and well-being has been proved to be reliable across countries and ages. However, the happiness of recipients has been frequently ignored in past prosocial behavior studies, and only a few studies have explored the effect of givers’ voluntary intention on recipients’ well-being and responses. Considering that the purpose of prosocial spending is to benefit both spenders and recipients, this study attempts to investigate the relationships among gift attractiveness, positive perceived intention, willingness-to-accept (WTA) and subjective well-being (SWB) of recipients in prosocial spending. The results of a large scale survey demonstrate that both gift attractiveness and positive perceived intention are positively related to recipients’ willingness-to-accept. And willingness-to-accept is positively associated with recipients’ SWB. More importantly, willingness-to-accept mediates both the relationship between gift attractiveness and SWB, and the relationship between positive perceived intention and SWB. Some implications for theory and practice are discussed.


Prosocial spending Recipients Subjective well-being Gift attractiveness Positive perceived intention Willingness-to-accept 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behavior & Personality An International Journal, 34(2), 139–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahuvia, A. (2002). Individualism/collectivism and cultures of happiness: A theoretical conjecture on the relationship between consumption, culture and subjective well-being at the national level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., et al. (2013a). Prosocial spending and well-Being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2012). Happiness runs in a circular motion: Evidence for a positive feedback loop between prosocial spending and happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), 347–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aknin, L. B., Dunn, E. W., Sandstrom, G. M., & Norton, M. I. (2013b). Does social connection turn good deeds into good feelings? On the value of putting the ‘social’ in prosocial spending. International Journal of Happiness & Development, 1(2), 155–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aknin, L. B., Sandstrom, G. M., Dunn, E. W., & Norton, M. I. (2011). It’s the recipient that counts: Spending money on strong social ties leads to greater happiness than spending on weak social ties. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e17018–e17018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alvarez, K., & Leeuwen, E. V. (2015). Paying it forward: how helping others can reduce the psychological threat of receiving help. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartal, D., Barzohar, Y., Greenberg, M. S., & Hermon, M. (1977). Reciprocity begavior in relationship between harm-doer and victim. Sociometry, 40(3), 293–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergen, C. W. V., Soper, B., Rosenthal, G. T., Cox, S. J., & Fullerton, R. (1999). When helping hurts: Negative effects of benevolent care. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 5, 134–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Block, M. (2004). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Educational Psychology Interactive.valdosta Ga Valdosta State University.Retrieved/24, 67(2), 172–178.Google Scholar
  11. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cummins, R. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(85), 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2008). Spending money on others promotes happiness. Science, 319(5870), 1687–1688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn, E. W., Aknin, L. B., & Norton, M. I. (2014). Prosocial spending and happiness: Using money to benefit others pays off. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(1), 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. British Medical Journal, 337(49), a2338–a2338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gleason, M. E. J., Iida, M., Bolger, N., & Shrout, P. E. (2003). Daily supportive equity in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1036–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, S. (1988). Children’s developing understanding of the motivational role of affect: An attributional analysis. Cognitive Development, 3(1), 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gross, A. E., & Latane, J. G. (1974). Receiving help, reciprocation, and interpersonal attraction1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(3), 210–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guevarra, D. A., & Howell, R. T. (2015). To have in order to do: Exploring the effects of consuming experiential products on well-being. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 28–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Guillen-Royo, M. (2008). Consumption and subjective wellbeing: Exploring basic needs, social comparison, social integration and hedonism in peru. Social Indicators Research, 89(3), 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hardy, C. L., & Van, V. M. (2006). Nice guys finish first: The competitive altruism hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1402–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Headey, B., Muffels, R., & Wooden, M. (2008). Money does not buy happiness: Or does it? A reassessment based on the combined effects of wealth, income and consumption. Social Indicators Research, 87(1), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilke, P., John, O. D., Baba, S., & Antonio, R. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(3), 1050–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, A. L., Rand, D. G., Nowak, M. A., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Emotions as infectious diseases in a large social network: the SISa model. Proceedings Of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 277(1701), 3827–3835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit Indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu, P. J., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16(2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information Systems Research, 13(2), 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lane, J., & Anderson, N. H. (1976). Integration of intention and outcome in moral judgment. Memory & Cognition, 4(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lee, D. Y., & Lehto, M. R. (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers & Education, 61(1), 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2013). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(1), 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maisel, N. C., & Gable, S. L. (2009). The paradox of received social support: The importance of responsiveness. Psychological Science, 20(8), 928–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLennan, J., Bates, G. W., Johnson, E., Lavery, A. R., & Horne, D. L. D. (1993). The death fantasy scale: A measure based on metaphors of one’s personal death. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 127(6), 619–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mishler, E. G. (1968). A theory of psychological reactance. Psychosomatic Medicine, 30(6), 887–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stability, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nadler, A., & Jeffrey, D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical validation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19(3), 81–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Newsom, J. T. (1999). Another side to caregiving: Negative reactions to being helped. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(6), 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nix, G. A., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(3), 266–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pressman, S. D., Kraft, T. L., & Cross, M. P. (2015). It’s good to do good and receive good: The impact of a ‘pay it forward’ style kindness intervention on giver and receiver well-being. Journal Of Positive Psychology, 10(4), 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santor, D. (1999). Using LISREL for structural equation modelling: A researcher’s guide. Canadian Psychology-Psychologie Canadienne, 40(4), 381–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simons, J., Irwin, D., & Drinnien, B. (1987). Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. New York: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  48. Tsang, J. A. (2006). The effects of helper intention on gratitude and indebtedness. Motivation and Emotion, 30(3), 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van, B. L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1193–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yalçın, İ., & Malkoç, A. (2015). The relationship between meaning in life and subjective well-being: Forgiveness and hope as mediators. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(4), 915–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wuke Zhang
    • 1
  • Mingliang Chen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ying Xie
    • 1
  • Zhen Zhao
    • 1
  1. 1.School of ManagementZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations